Department of Education vs. San Diego 180 SCRA 533 (December 21, 1989)

Department of education vs. San Diego

180 SCRA 533 (December 21, 1989)

Facts: The respondent failed to pass the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) 3 times and he was denied admission to take the test for another time by the petitioner under its rule that a student is allowed only to take the NMAT 3 times and after 3 consecutive failures a student shall not be allowed to take NMAT the 4th time. Respondent invoke his constitutional rights on academic freedom and quality education in his petition for mandamus before the court. Respondent judge rendered decision citing the admission rule of the petitioner as an arbitrary exercise of police power, depriving respondent of his right to pursue medical education thus this petition for review before the higher court. Issue: Whether or not the admission rule implemented by petitioner an arbitrary exercise of police power. Held: The court held that police power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. The proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health. The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors. The State needs to implement decisive steps to regulate system of education by directing students to the course where he is best suited through initial tests and evaluation. The decision of the respondent judge was reversed.